Examining the Impact of Inference Instruction on the Literal and Inferential Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers: A Meta-Analytic Review

114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading (2021, background): “…beyond vocabulary and printed text, such as when making inferences or when interpreting the nonliteral meanings of metaphors and figures of speech Elleman (2017) Language structure The organization of language to convey meaning, such as how words are ordered within a sentence (syntax); some…”
Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “Following recommendations from Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, and Rothstein (2009), a minimum of six effect sizes for a particular moderator category was necessary for moderator analyses to be appropriate (see Elleman, 2017, for a similar approach).”
The Science of Reading Comprehension Instruction (2021, background): “Still, the instruction was “effective for improving reading comprehension performance across a range of diverse learners and across various educational settings” (Joseph, AlberMorgan, Cullen, & Rouse, 2016, p. 152; for similar findings in inference instruction, see Elleman, 2017).”
Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading (2019, background): “While gains are made on what has been taught, transfer effects to nontrained components or on standardised measures of reading comprehension are small (Elleman, 2017; Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009).”